Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urban Zone

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Zone[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one Independent source in the article, the other is clearly an affiliated source. Searches indicate nothing better. The best I could find was one passing mention.

This is completely apart from the fact that her PR manager has admitted planting stories in the press, taking into question even the limited coverage the show has got, see the AfD on her own article. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC) — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – doesn't pass WP:GNG: two sources are provided: the first is a non-independent primary source (blog of the show's host); the other could somewhat pass as a secondary source but misses broad coverage of the topic (does no more than more or less repeat the content of the blog page). A less than half-eligible secondary source (didn't invest further time in assessing possible ineligibility for reliability reasons) does not make "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources". Plus all the WP:COIN stuff we had lately with the host's PR agent. Looked at WP:NTV but didn't see anything more redeeming there ("the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone"). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG per nom and Francis Schonken. The deliberate subversion of notability requirements are enough to question seemingly RS sources, which are even absent here. Widefox; talk 21:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources are Oseña-Paez's own website and an article on the Philippine Entertainment Portal (another spammy page) explaining why the show, which closed down five years ago, no longer airs. – Athaenara ✉ 15:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm shocked, shocked, that a television program might have hired a PR firm. I'd expect this type of show to meet the (generally-low) notability guidelines, but I can't find any significant coverage of it. [1] shows that it was nominated for an award, but that isn't enough on its own. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.